How Would Government Be Funded in a Free Society?

[Lamp]

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...ow-would-govt/

Craig Biddle | Individual Rights & Law
| AUDIO
From The Objective Standard, Vol. 7, No. 2.
Advocates of a fully free, laissez-faire society are likely familiar with the following scenario. You provide a clear, well-concretized explanation of what capitalism is and why it is moral, only to be met with a question that seemingly wipes out everything you just said: “But if physical force were legally forbidden, taxation would be out; so how would a rights-protecting government be financed?” The implication being: A truly free society might sound great in theory, but it’s impossible in practice.
In addressing this question, it is important to emphasize that the elimination of taxation is not the first but the last step on the road to a fully rights-respecting society.1 The first steps are to educate people about the moral propriety of freedom, to cut government spending on illegitimate programs, and to begin the process of limiting government to the protection of rights. But, here as everywhere, the moral is the practical, and we who advocate a rights-respecting society would do well to understand—and to be able to articulate—how the government in such a society would be funded.
Let’s begin by summarizing the nature of government, the reason we need it, and its legitimate functions and elements. Then we’ll turn to the question of how to fund it.

[merkelstan]

Thread title elicited a laugh.

Sorry that wasn't clever or helpful. Society does need government. Whether it needs the State is another question. Still reading...

[Swordsmyth]

Free Riders are a problem, because it spreads like cancer until those who are willing to pay can no longer afford to cover the required cost.

It is called "The tragedy of the commons" look it up.

[Occam's Banana]

Free Riders are a problem, because it spreads like cancer until those who are willing to pay can no longer afford to cover the required cost.

The so-called "free rider problem" doesn't have anything to do with no one being able to afford to cover the required costs. The problem supposedly manifests when an insufficient number of people who could afford to cover the required costs are not willing to do so (which is an entirely different dynamic). A lighthouse, for example, can be "ridden freely" by any passing ship, but this does not make the lighthouse (more) unaffordable to those who are (or might be) willing to pay for it - nor does it lessen the value of the lighthouse to those who are (or might be) willing to pay for it.

It is called "The tragedy of the commons" look it up.

The "tragedy of the commons" arises due to the depletion or spoliation of shared resources. The "free rider problem" and the "tragedy of the commons" are different things (though the first may contribute to or exacerbate the second). The distinction can be seen in the fact that (to return to the previous example) a lighthouse is not "used up" or spoliated by the addition of "free riders."

[tod evans]

How Would Government Be Funded in a Free Society?

I didn't read the wall of text yet....

Locally is my simple answer, anything beyond the immediate reach of the funder would starve.

National issues would no longer be mandatory because there would be no lucre to use for bribes.

[juleswin]

Critical Guidelines Focus
The following guidelines are of critical concern with little to no tolerance of deviation from the staff:

Operate within morally sound laws. Promoting violence, theft or other illegal activities will not be tolerated.
Respect others' copyrights, intellectual property and contracts, per legal standards. Limit fair-use posting of copyright material to the lesser of four paragraphs or a quarter of the writing.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...s-and-Policies

Copyright © 2017 The Objective Standard. All Rights Reserved. Material on this website may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form or manner, without prior written permission from the publisher. To request permission, please email editor@theobjectivestandard.com. The Objective Standard, 4036 Suite D, Cox Road, Glen Allen, VA, 23060.

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...ow-would-govt/

I have pointed out this little but important rule to this poster before but he keeps posting full articles from copyrighted sources to the forum without any mention of originators permission to do so. I am posting this again in the hope that he sees this or a moderator sees it and edit the OP articles down. It is one thing if he article in question is chuck full of important paragraphs making it hard to edit but you made no effort in summarizing the article and instead did a lazy copy and past of the whole thing.

[Lamp]

There ya happy now?

[Anti Federalist]

Government?

Free society?

The two are mutually exclusive.

[juleswin]

There ya happy now?

Not really, I truly believe you are trolling the site. No 15 yr old with your level of maturity is going to be on the site just to hang out. You know what, what exactly is your backstory. I would really like to know how a 15 yr old with the maturity level of the average 15 yr old happened to land on this site? You really don't have to prove anything to me, I am really a nobody here and there is no litmus test to be a member of the site.

I hope I am wrong about you but I have a sick feeling about it all.

[CCTelander]

Oh, I don't know. Bakes sales? Swap meets? Garage sales? Hell, maybe they could even clean out their closets and attics and sell a bunch of $#@! on eBay.

If they're gonna force their damn government on me anyway, at least let them work for it.

[Swordsmyth]

The so-called "free rider problem" doesn't have anything to do with no one being able to afford to cover the required costs. The problem supposedly manifests when an insufficient number of people who could afford to cover the required costs are not willing to do so (which is an entirely different dynamic). A lighthouse, for example, can be "ridden freely" by any passing ship, but this does not make the lighthouse (more) unaffordable to those who are (or might be) willing to pay for it - nor does it lessen the value of the lighthouse to those who are (or might be) willing to pay for it.



The "tragedy of the commons" arises due to the depletion or spoliation of shared resources. The "free rider problem" and the "tragedy of the commons" are different things (though the first may contribute to or exacerbate the second). The distinction can be seen in the fact that (to return to the previous example) a lighthouse is not "used up" or spoliated by the addition of "free riders."

When everybody stops paying for the cops/firefighters etc. because they see that their neighbors don't, soon the minimum threshold costs will not be covered.
Your Lighthouse example is false because it doesn't take much in the way of maintenance and the local port pays for it with taxes.

And "The tragedy of the commons" is that they are not maintained because everyone thinks they can not pay for them because everyone else is paying.

[Anti Federalist]

There ya happy now?

Not really, I truly believe you are trolling the site. No 15 yr old with your level of maturity is going to be on the site just to hang out. You know what, what exactly is your backstory. I would really like to know how a 15 yr old with the maturity level of the average 15 yr old happened to land on this site? You really don't have to prove anything to me, I am really a nobody here and there is no litmus test to be a member of the site.

I hope I am wrong about you but I have a sick feeling about it all.

Eduardo arguing with Eduardo.

How existential can you get?

[Lamp]

eeyup

[osan]

Thread title elicited a laugh.

Sorry that wasn't clever or helpful. Society does need government†. Whether it needs the State is another question††. Still reading...

† Wrong. It needs governANCE. The two are related, yet they are not the same. GovernMENT suggests separation of governing roles from the general population. This is FAIL^^FAIL and the primary reason we are in $#@! up to our eyeballs. There are no cops where every man assumes the role with faithfulness to the task, which includes respect for his fellows.

†† This one you got right.

[osan]

When everybody stops paying for the cops/firefighters etc. because they see that their neighbors don't, soon the minimum threshold costs will not be covered.
Your Lighthouse example is false because it doesn't take much in the way of maintenance and the local port pays for it with taxes.

And "The tragedy of the commons" is that they are not maintained because everyone thinks they can not pay for them because everyone else is paying.

You read a bit like a communist.

[Swordsmyth]

You read a bit like a communist.

If you can't tell the difference between a Minarchist and a Communist then you not as smart as I used to think.

[CCTelander]

Government?

Free society?

The two are mutually exclusive.

Exactly.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."

[osan]

If you can't tell the difference between a Minarchist and a Communist then you not as smart as I used to think.

Oh don't take what I wrote so personally, for pete's sake. I said you READ like a communist, not that you ARE one.

The implication of what you wrote is that force is just in the relevant sense. I disagree. If fire departments are truly wanted, people will find ways to have them on a voluntary basis, rather than through the villainy of taxation.

Now, if people were generally honest, just, and respectful of the rights of men, we could have minarchy without tyranny. That, however, is are REALLY big "if" for which there appears to my eyes to be no extant examples as we scan the long and abundantly miserable history of human Empire. Given this, I do believe my case is well made that people, given a foot in the doors of power, drive themselves mad with it in no time flat. It seems to be what we do.

What we need is warrior-anarchy, which I also call "panarchy", if "archy" must be used. I prefer, however, "autodiathism", from the Greek for "self determination", and a term I coined a few years back.

It seems clear to me that highly packed populations are eminently prone to tyranny. Less dense centers are less prone, perhaps because people are on a more personalized basis in their relationships with others. When one man sees another as a man and not as a thing, the nature of the relationship between the two tends to be very much better than the other way. Big city cops tend to see non-cops as objects, or even as "the enemy", and behave accordingly.

I am thinking perhaps the admonition of the Georgia Guidestones is correct. But which of us are going to be first to volunteer for the disintegration chambers?

That's what I thought.

Don't take things personally. I almost never get personal with people. You'd have to do a fancy job of button pushing to get me to want to go there.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh don't take what I wrote so personally, for pete's sake. I said you READ like a communist, not that you ARE one.

The implication of what you wrote is that force is just in the relevant sense. I disagree. If fire departments are truly wanted, people will find ways to have them on a voluntary basis, rather than through the villainy of taxation.

Now, if people were generally honest, just, and respectful of the rights of men, we could have minarchy without tyranny. That, however, is are REALLY big "if" for which there appears to my eyes to be no extant examples as we scan the long and abundantly miserable history of human Empire. Given this, I do believe my case is well made that people, given a foot in the doors of power, drive themselves mad with it in no time flat. It seems to be what we do.

What we need is warrior-anarchy, which I also call "panarchy", if "archy" must be used. I prefer, however, "autodiathism", from the Greek for "self determination", and a term I coined a few years back.

It seems clear to me that highly packed populations are eminently prone to tyranny. Less dense centers are less prone, perhaps because people are on a more personalized basis in their relationships with others. When one man sees another as a man and not as a thing, the nature of the relationship between the two tends to be very much better than the other way. Big city cops tend to see non-cops as objects, or even as "the enemy", and behave accordingly.

I am thinking perhaps the admonition of the Georgia Guidestones is correct. But which of us are going to be first to volunteer for the disintegration chambers?

That's what I thought.

Don't take things personally. I almost never get personal with people. You'd have to do a fancy job of button pushing to get me to want to go there.

Your UTOPIA can't exist because most people are selfish, lazy, and corrupt, and will happily do nothing about crime or tyranny, while many of the rest are incapable of contributing due to age, poverty, sickness, personal life demands, etc. society must hire dedicated specialists. Keeping them in check is the price of liberty.

[Occam's Banana]

When everybody stops paying for the cops/firefighters etc. because they see that their neighbors don't, soon the minimum threshold costs will not be covered.

You are arguing in circles. You assert as a premise that "everybody stops paying [...] because [some do not pay]" in support of your conclusion that "costs will not be covered." Of course it's tritely true that "costs will not be covered" if "everybody stops paying." But whether "everybody stops paying" is the very question at issue - and contrary to your question-begging assertion, it has not been established that "everybody stops paying" if some do not pay.

Your Lighthouse example is false because it doesn't take much in the way of maintenance [...]

It is not false. "Free riding" is "free riding," regardless of how much the resource being used "take[s ...] in the way of maintenance" - and given that value is subjective, there is no non-arbitrary point at which it can objectively be said that any good or service (lighthouses, cops, firefighters, etc.) does or does not "take [too] much in the way of maintenance."

[...] and the local port pays for it with taxes.

It is not necessary that lighthouses are publicly funded. (The existence of private lighthouses demonstrates this.)

Nor are they necessarily associated with ports at all (and even when they are, passing ships may still make use of them without paying).

And "The tragedy of the commons" is that they are not maintained because everyone thinks they can not pay for them because everyone else is paying.

No, that is not the "tragedy of the commons" - that is the so-called "free rider problem." They are not the same thing, and that's why they're called by different names (though as I noted previously, the latter may contribute to or exacerbate the former). One of the differences between them is that the "tragedy of the commons" necessarily involves depletion and/or spoliation of the shared resource, while the "free rider problem" does not.

[osan]

Your UTOPIA

Utopia? Not sure how you mean the term. It may have the common connotations, all of which are in error, or you might mean it in the sense of the tome of equal title by Thomas More.

A free land is in no certain terms a utopia. It is simply free. Free men have the choice of how they will live. They may choose the "perfect" order of the utopia, chaos, or anything in between. The conditions of their lives, at least in terms of human relations, are entirely up to them. It is a choice and a decision, prone to no happenstance and accident. Men choose how they will live together. The choose the tyrannies they set upon their fellows, just as those fellows choose those very tyrannies to which they have been subjected.

can't exist because most people are selfish, lazy, and corrupt, and will happily do nothing about crime or tyranny,

Matters of choice, all of it. Those who perpetrate are compelled by no force other than their FAIL (Fear Avarice Ignorance Lassitude), just as those subjected are largely guilty in similar measure and style.

while many of the rest are incapable of contributing due to age, poverty, sickness, personal life demands, etc. society must hire dedicated specialists.

There is a thing called "charity", and I have seen it made evident in great abundance. Just see how Americans saved Berlin from starving in the wake of the Soviet blockade. That is but one small example in a great sea of examples.

Some people are REALLY $#@!ty, and it takes only a little of that to cause great harms. In a free land, the lessons of the Free Man would be learned very rapidly, as life and death would rest in the balance in ways no different than they do now in the presence of the "state". Let me be clear: there is no state, just as there is no government. These are fictions used to fool people into believing things that are not true used to get them to do one's bidding. They are grand lies - damned lies, in fact.

Keeping them in check is the price of liberty.

That is not the question at hand, but rather by whom and how shall the checks be determined and implemented. "Government" has proven itself over and over again to be the wrong path. It it criminality thinly veiled as authority. Not only is it no better than anarchy, it is orders of magnitude worse. Make people truly free and they would learn a new way of passing from day to day. True respect would become the common keystone because any and all would be authorized by the very nature of proper human relations to do what they could to defend their rightful interests and property.

I must laugh when people wax all dreading of the spectre of anarchic society, that it would be chaos, death, and misery. I seriously doubt it. But a sudden transition from what we now have to that would certainly entail a period of serious $#@!, of that I have little doubt. That is because most people are dumbasses where their knowledge of human relations is concerned. They don't know $#@! about it, though they fancy themselves experts.

The price of liberty is respect for all, lest you find yourself hanging, inverted, from a tree sans your hide for transgressing against one whose stick was bigger than yours.

[merkelstan]

Some people are REALLY $#@!ty, and it takes only a little of that to cause great harms..

That is why a homogeneous, high trust society made up of high time-preference people will have a good quality of life. The economic system is actually secondary to that.

I used to think libertarianism was the only important thing, now I think there might be something else required for domestic peace and productivity.

[otherone]

Your UTOPIA can't exist because most people are selfish, lazy, and corrupt, and will happily do nothing about crime or tyranny, while many of the rest are incapable of contributing due to age, poverty, sickness, personal life demands, etc. society must hire dedicated specialists. Keeping them in check is the price of liberty.

LOL!
So let's put them in charge!

[osan]

That is why a homogeneous, high trust society made up of high time-preference people will have a good quality of life.

For five minutes. Maybe.

You erroneously assume you can have a cadre of saints to lord over the dregs. That is how it's been done since Sumer and it has been a perfect formula for universal misery and death.

The only good solution is freedom, but it must be taken come what may. You appear to be seeking guarantees where none are possible. A warrior culture will yield the best possible circumstance for men. There will still be horror and ugliness, but I suspect they would be far less abundant.

The economic system is actually secondary to that.

Au contraire. The economic system, AKA the market, is centrally important. It is the environment in which property rights are most commonly exercised. To discount it as you have done is a great error, IMO.

I used to think libertarianism was the only important thing, now I think there might be something else required for domestic peace and productivity.

I think you are in grave error. You appear to want an arrangement that is by necessity self destructive, thinking all the while that it will bring something it cannot in the longer run. No system apart from self-governance works in the long term. History gives us abundant examples of it. Empire is a net misery producer and always has been.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL!
So let's put them in charge!

That is Osan's Idea.

I Like a Constitutionally limited Government.

You can't escape humanity unless you find a place to hide all by yourself.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Government?

Free society?

The two are mutually exclusive.

Yup...

[Indy Vidual]

...nor does it lessen the value of the lighthouse...

...Which stood on rocky shores and kept the beaches shipwreck free
Though I respect that a lot
I'd be fired if that were my job
After killing Jason off and countless screaming Argonauts...

Caution: Once spent, you can never get your 3 minutes back.

[osan]

That is Osan's Idea.

I Like a Constitutionally limited Government.

Sure, so long as it is properly architected, implemented, maintained, and administered.

I'd be surprised if a nation could accomplish even one of those objectives. All four? C'est très peu probable.

Our problems stem not so much from the form of government so much as the fact of it.

[helmuth_hubener]

How Would Government Be Funded in a Free Society?

Advertising and sponsorship revenues from the public hangings.

Free Riders are a problem

Civilization itself, all of civilization itself, is one gigantic insoluble free rider problem.

And yet, here we are.

Chew on that!

[Lamp]

Everyone should just pay for neighborhood wide private security up front like in Cape Town instead.